Rodzssen Supply Co, Inc vs. Far East Bank & Trust Co

RODZSSEN SUPPLY CO. INC. vs. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO.
G.R. No. 109087. 9 May 2001.
FACTS: On January 15, 1979, defendant Rodzssen Supply, Inc. opened with plaintiff Far East Bank
and Trust Co. a 30-day domestic letter of credit, in the amount ofP190,000.00 in favor of Ekman and
Company, Inc. (Ekman) for the purchase from the latter of five units of hydraulic loaders, to
expire on February 15,1979. The three loaders were delivered to defendant for which plaintiff paid
Ekmanand which defendant paid plaintiff before expiry date of LC. The remaining two loaders were
delivered to defendant but the latter refused to pay. Ekman pressed payment to plaintiff. Plaintiff
paid Ekman for the two loaders and later demanded from defendant such amount as it paid Ekman.
Rodzssen’s contention:
In the Answer, Rodz interposed, inter alia, by way of special and affirmative defenses that plaintiff
Far East had no cause of action against defendant Rodz; that there was a breach of contract by
Far East who in bad faith paid Ekman, knowing that the two units of hydraulic loaders had been
delivered to defendant Rodz after the expiry date of subject LC; and that in view of the breach of
contract, defendant offered to return to plaintiff the two units of hydraulic loaders, presently still
with the defendant but plaintiff refused to take possession thereof.
When both parties are mutually negligent

Defendant Rodz became liable to Ekman for the payment of said two units. However, as
defendant Rodz did not pay Ekman, the latter pressed plaintiff Far East for the payment of said two
loaders in the amount of P76,000.00. In the honest belief that it was still under obligation to Ekman
for said amount, considering that Ekman had presented all the necessary documents, plaintiff
Far East voluntarily paid the said amount to Ekman. Plaintiffs voluntary and lawful act
payment gave rise to a quasi-contract between plaintiff and defendant; and if defendant
should escape liability for said amount, the result would be to allow defendant to enrich itself
at plaintiffs expense.
The CA Ruling
The CA rejected petitioners Rodz imputation of bad faith and negligence to respondent bank Far
east for paying for the two hydraulic loaders, which had been delivered after the expiration of the
subject letter of credit. The appellate court pointed out that petitioner received the equipment after
the letter of credit had expired. To absolve defendant from liability for the price of the same, the CA
explained, is to allow it to get away with its unjust enrichment at the expense of the plaintiff.
The Court’s Ruling

We affirm the Court of Appeals, but lower the interest rate to only 6 percent and delete the award of
attorneys fees.
Was Petitioner Liable to Respondent?

Be that as it may, we agree with the CA that petitioner should pay respondent bank the amount the
latter expended for the equipment belatedly delivered by Ekman and voluntarily received and kept
by petitioner. Respondent banks right to seek recovery from petitioner is anchored, not upon the
inefficacious Letter of Credit, but on Article 2142 of the Civil Code which reads as follows: Certain
lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end
that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. Indeed, equitable
considerations behoove us to allow recovery by respondent. True, it erred in paying Ekman, but
petitioner itself was not without fault in the transaction. It must be noted that the latter had
voluntarily received and kept the loaders since October 1979.Petitioner claims that it accepted the
late delivery of the equipment, only because it was bound to accept it under the company’s trust
receipt arrangement with respondent bank. Granting that petitioner was bound under such
arrangement to accept the late delivery of the equipment, we note its unexplained inaction for
almost four years with regard to the status of the ownership or possession of the loaders.
Bewildering was its lack of action to validate the ownership and possession of the loaders, as well
as its stolidity over the purported failed sales transaction. Significant too is the fact that it
formalized its offer to return the two pieces of equipment only after respondents demand for
payment, which came more than three years after it accepted delivery. When both parties to a
transaction are mutually negligent in the performance of their obligations, the fault of one cancels
the negligence of the other and, as in this case, their rights and obligations may be determined
equitably under the law proscribing unjust enrichment. The SC agrees with the CA that petitioner
should pay respondent bank the amount the latter expended for the equipment belatedly delivered
by Ekman and voluntarily received and kept by petitioner. Equitable considerations behoove us to
allow recovery by respondent. True, it erred in paying Ekman, but petitioner itself was not without
fault in the transaction. It must be noted that the latter had voluntarily received and kept the
loaders since October 1979.

When both parties to a transaction are mutually negligent in the performance of their obligations, the
fault of one cancels the negligence of the other and, as in this case, their rights and obligations may be
determined equitably under the law proscribing unjust enrichment.
The Interest Rate:

The SC disagrees with both the CA and the trial courts imposition of 12 percent interest on the sum
to be paid by petitioner. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is
breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the
court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged until the demand can be
established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, when it is already so established, the interest
shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code)
but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the
interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the
quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained).3. When the
judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal
interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum
from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an
equivalent to a forbearance of credit. Although the sum of money involved in this case was payable
to a bank, the present factual milieu clearly shows that it was not a loan or forbearance of money.
Thus, pursuant to established jurisprudence and Article 2009 of the Civil Code, petitioner is bound
to pay interest at 6 percent per annum, computed from April 7, 1983, the time respondent
bank demanded payment from petitioner. From the finality of the judgment until its satisfaction,
the interest shall be 12 percent per annum.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Courtof Appeals
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. Petitioner Rodzssen Supply Co., Inc. is ORDERED to reimburse Respondent Far East Bank and
Trust Co., Inc. P76,000 plus interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed from
April 7, 1983.After this judgment becomes final, the interest shall be 12 percent per annum.
RODZSSEN SUPPLY CO. INC. vs. FAR EAST BANK &TRUST CO.
G.R. No. 109087 | May 9, 2001
F A C T S :
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
January 21, 1993 Decision2 of the CA which affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC of
Bacolod City. On January 15, 1979, defendant Rodzssen Supply, Inc. opened with plaintiff Far East
Bank and Trust Co. a 30-day domestic letter of credit, in the amount of P190,000.00 in favor of
Ekman and Company, Inc. (Ekman) for the purchase from the latter of five units of hydraulic
loaders, to expire on February 15, 1979.The three loaders were delivered to defendant for which
plaintiff paid Ekman and which defendant paid plaintiff before expiry date of LC. The remaining two
loaders were delivered to defendant but the latter refused to pay. Ekman pressed payment to
plaintiff. Plaintiff paid Ekman for the two loaders and later demanded from defendant such amount
as it paid Ekman. Defendant refused payment contending that there was a breach of contract by
plaintiff who in bad faith paid Ekman, knowing that the two units of hydraulic loaders had been
delivered to defendant after the expiry date of subject LC.
I S S U E :
Whether or not petitioner is liable to respondent.
RULING:
The SC agrees with the CA that petitioner should pay respondent bank the amount the latter
expended for the equipment belatedly delivered by Ekman and voluntarily received and kept by
petitioner. Equitable considerations behoove us to allow recovery by respondent. True, it erred in
paying Ekman, but petitioner itself was not without fault in the transaction. It must be noted that
the latter had voluntarily received and kept the loaders since October 1979. When both parties to a
transaction are mutually negligent in the performance of their obligations, the fault of one cancels
the negligence of the other and, as in this case, their rights and obligations may be determined
equitably under the law proscribing unjust enrichment.

Rodzssen Supply Co, Inc vs. Far East Bank & Trust Co

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rodzssen Supply Co, Inc vs. Far East Bank & Trust Co

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rodzssen Supply Co, Inc vs. Far East Bank & Trust Co

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RODZSSEN SUPPLY CO. INC. vs. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO.

G.R. No. 109087. 9 May 2001.

When both parties are mutually negligent

The Court’s Ruling

Was Petitioner Liable to Respondent?

The Interest Rate:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.